Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Suggest New Bands and Artists
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Meshuggah on prog archives???
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMeshuggah on prog archives???

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2005 at 02:49

I don't hate it - I just don't find it prog - at least, not as prog as say Metallica.

I don't see how it is progressive - I picked it apart in absolute minutae, and can hear a very few progressive elements, but certainly nowhere near enough for prog rock.

We must be listening with different ears - the death grunts are there for all to hear! I have nothing against them, being a fan of Chuck Shuldiner's Death, but there's no mistaking that style of vocals.

If they're not a prog band, they shouldn't be in the archives, and if the albums aren't prog, they can't get 4 or 5 stars, since those ratings only apply to prog albums - this isn't Amazon.

Let's get Queen, Deep Purple, System Of a Down, Muse and Cradle of Filth in the archives, quick!



Edited by Certif1ed
Back to Top
Bryan View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 01 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2005 at 21:31
You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Also... no, those aren't death grunts.  There's a big difference between growling and screaming, and Jens Kidman is clearly doing the latter.

I'm really not in any kind of mindset to debate "how prog" Catch 33 is, but I stand by my review.


Edited by Useful_Idiot
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2005 at 03:15

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive. 

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2005 at 03:19

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Also... no, those aren't death grunts.  There's a big difference between growling and screaming, and Jens Kidman is clearly doing the latter.

I'm really not in any kind of mindset to debate "how prog" Catch 33 is, but I stand by my review.

I've listened to Catch 33 several times now to see what I was missing, and have come to the conclusion that I have missed nothing. It isn't prog, IMO, so I'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to say what you are and aren't allowed to do - and it's hard to listen to text on a page... I just wanted to understand what I was missing, and, since you can't seem to texturalise your thoughts, or plain don't want to in a kind of "I say it's prog, therefore it is" kind of way, then I guess I'll never know.

Growling, grunting, screaming, tomato, tomato, whatever - it's all been done before and is not a progressive vocal style, and that minimalist style of riffing and medleyising of songs is simply an element of prog - it does not make this album a prog rock album, IMO.

You call it what you like, and I'll keep calling "Master Of Puppets" the first prog metal album

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2005 at 03:22
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive. 

Potential for prog is not good enough, IMO - otherwise why aren't Muse here? As I said, Catch 33 is NOT a prog album.

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2005 at 04:42
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive. 

Potential for prog is not good enough, IMO - otherwise why aren't Muse here? As I said, Catch 33 is NOT a prog album.

Yes it is. I think we are both right. It's a borderline decision.

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2005 at 08:39

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2005 at 08:51
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?

I read your review of "I". I must say that I'm annoyed. In the last paragraph, you complain about this music being not similar to Yes or Genesis etc..

It makes no sense to compare Meshuggah to 70s symphonic prog. The reviews and ratings cannot be based upon the similarity of arbitrary music to songs like CttE. I think that the rating should always be based on comparing the music to similar albums of the genre, not bash the genre as a whole.

In your review, you mention various positive attributes of the album (song). Why isn't this reflected in your rating? 3 stars would be appropriate. It is not for collectors only. It is essential for fans of the band (5 stars). It is a very good album (4 stars) for fans of extreme prog metal like Dillinger Escape Plan or Fantomas. It is a good, but not essential album (3 stars) for prog metal fans. It is a 2 star album for 70s symphonic prog fans. It is a 1 star album for prog metal bashers.

You mention Cradle Of Filth ... IMO they are not the slightest bit progressive. I'd like to take the opportunity and hurl this "Probably rightly so" right back at you.

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 06 2005 at 02:50
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?

I read your review of "I". I must say that I'm annoyed. In the last paragraph, you complain about this music being not similar to Yes or Genesis etc..

Wrong - I say that I would not recommend it to fans of those bands - simple. You're reading too much into it.

It makes no sense to compare Meshuggah to 70s symphonic prog. The reviews and ratings cannot be based upon the similarity of arbitrary music to songs like CttE. I think that the rating should always be based on comparing the music to similar albums of the genre, not bash the genre as a whole.

I'm not bashing a genre - I'm considering the album in terms of progressive music, which is what this site is all about - at least, it used to be when I were a lad...

In your review, you mention various positive attributes of the album (song). Why isn't this reflected in your rating? 3 stars would be appropriate. It is not for collectors only. It is essential for fans of the band (5 stars). It is a very good album (4 stars) for fans of extreme prog metal like Dillinger Escape Plan or Fantomas. It is a good, but not essential album (3 stars) for prog metal fans. It is a 2 star album for 70s symphonic prog fans. It is a 1 star album for prog metal bashers.

It's for fans/collectors of that genre only, that's why. It's not for the general prog rock fan. I'm not going to split bloody hairs about it, man, it's about Prog Rock and that's that. The rating is NOT about how good we think the album is - except at the extremes. The stars are representative. I awarded ELP's debut 4 stars, but I hate the thing. The reason it got 4 stars is because it's an Excellent Addition to ANY prog collection - even if you sell it on later because you don't like it, you should hear it.

You mention Cradle Of Filth ... IMO they are not the slightest bit progressive.

Tomato, tomato. They're 100 times more progressive than Meshuggah, and that's based on fact, not my opinion. 

I'd like to take the opportunity and hurl this "Probably rightly so" right back at you.

*catch*

You're out

Back to Top
Bryan View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 01 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 06 2005 at 20:28
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?



Okay, let's look at "I" for a second.  It's an extended track with numerous different sections, which could easily be given individual titles and be divided into a "suite".  It contains numerous different time signatures (which are extremely complex, of course), which it alternates through every couple of minutes.  In addition, there are some extremely fusion influenced guitar solos.  What I'm being forced to wonder is... what is it you're looking for that would make it "prog" but aren't finding?  Just because it doesn't sound like Yes or Genesis, doesn't mean it isn't prog.  As somebody who fought valiantly for Radiohead's inclusion on the site, I figured you of all people would know that Cert...

Also, I disagree with the idea of giving something 2 stars just because it isn't prog.  Tool's Undertow isn't a prog album, but Tool is on here and I love Undertow, so I gave it 4 stars.  Same goes for No-Man's Wild Opera.  Brian Eno's Ambient 1: Music For Airports isn't prog either, but I gave it 3 because I consider it a pretty good album, regardless of what genre it may fit under.  Trashing something for "not being prog" is what created that whole Radiohead debacle back when they were added, and is still consistently a problem among the reviews on this site.  That's just my opinion though, and who am I to criticize your rating system?
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2005 at 04:00
Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?



Okay, let's look at "I" for a second.  It's an extended track with numerous different sections, which could easily be given individual titles and be divided into a "suite".  It contains numerous different time signatures (which are extremely complex, of course), which it alternates through every couple of minutes.  In addition, there are some extremely fusion influenced guitar solos.  What I'm being forced to wonder is... what is it you're looking for that would make it "prog" but aren't finding?  Just because it doesn't sound like Yes or Genesis, doesn't mean it isn't prog.  As somebody who fought valiantly for Radiohead's inclusion on the site, I figured you of all people would know that Cert...

Also, I disagree with the idea of giving something 2 stars just because it isn't prog.  Tool's Undertow isn't a prog album, but Tool is on here and I love Undertow, so I gave it 4 stars.  Same goes for No-Man's Wild Opera.  Brian Eno's Ambient 1: Music For Airports isn't prog either, but I gave it 3 because I consider it a pretty good album, regardless of what genre it may fit under.  Trashing something for "not being prog" is what created that whole Radiohead debacle back when they were added, and is still consistently a problem among the reviews on this site.  That's just my opinion though, and who am I to criticize your rating system?

You'd think I was indulging in some heavy-duty bashing... I'm only asking simple questions!

On the first point, Venom wrote a 23-minute track called "At War With Satan", with different sections that could easily be given individual titles, but that's not prog.

Time signatures alone do not make it prog - are you familiar with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?

The guitar solos are the weakest part - there is little or no technical creativity in the solos.

It doesn't have to sound like Genesis or Yes, of course - but it does have to be progressive. If rhythm was the only aspect a band needed to become prog, then Steve Reich's "Drumming" and much of Philip Glass's minimalist catalogue would be prog. And how about Harrison Birtwhistle?

Metal with interesting time signatures is metal with interesting time signatures. You could say it was progressive, but it was just as progressive of Jimmy Page to play the guitar with a violin bow.

This is a single approach used all the way through "I", and it stops being progressive very quickly, as it simply becomes a style - do you get the difference? The music does not "grow", it simply changes over time. That's but a single, some might say compelling reason why it is not prog.

The textures rarely vary, there is no apparent influence from other genres, there is no melodic or harmonic development, form is pretty much ignored, and rhythmically, the goal is to be as complex as possible. Vocally, there's not much to say - a subtle variation on a single style that has been done so many times before in the last 20 years.

And you wonder why I don't hear any prog?

I've posted the site guidelines and the rating system into another thread because you're not the only one having difficulties understanding how to rate a prog album.

3 is a fair rating for "Airports", as the 3 rating concedes that the album is not for every collection of prog rock - to me it suggests an album that falls somewhere just outside of prog, but is still interesting to a progger.

I have not trashed anything for not being prog - I'm not trashing "I", simply evaluating it in terms of prog. I even said in my review that I liked it. 

As far as the Radiohead debacle is concerned, all I did was inject some common sense - I didn't "Fight valiantly" - but I could, if you wanted...

I had many PMs from people who finally "saw the light" - not so much converts to Radiohead, but greater understanding of why their music is so very progressive thanks to their inclusion.

Back to Top
MorgothSunshine View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2005 at 04:38
A band is not necessary prog because of the complexity of the music...prog is not only complexity!
For every truth even the contrary is true...
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2005 at 04:43

Originally posted by MorgothSunshine MorgothSunshine wrote:

A band is not necessary prog because of the complexity of the music...prog is not only complexity!

Thanks for clarifying that, I had no idea ... now I've seen the light!



Edited by MikeEnRegalia
Back to Top
Bryan View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 01 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2005 at 21:37
I guess this just comes down to a matter of one's perception as to what is and isn't prog.  I stand by what I said though.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.